---

Pensions Bill

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, for their support for the amendment. I am disappointed that the Minister, while professing to be in the same place in respect of the substance of the amendment, did not find it appropriate to say that the Government welcomed the idea of an amendment. The first of the subsections, which is about not requiring advice, was meant to be declaratory so that there could be no misunderstanding of the role of employers and I can see that it might be regarded as otiose. I am much less clear about the issue of providing information in connection with Clause 9. Subsection (2) of my proposed new clause was designed to give a safe harbour to employers so that they would willingly, without reservations and caveats, take part in their obligations under Clause 9 when the regulations are laid. The Minister said that it was unlikely that they would have liability, but ““unlikely”” is not quite good enough for employers. I entirely take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, raised about qualifying ““in good faith””, or words of that nature. It goes without saying that you do not take safe harbour without having those kinds of sentiments that are associated with it, which may or may not be imported as a matter of law. This is an important issue for employers. Employers have been painted today as being on the whole rather a bad lot. The amendment tries to reflect that employers recognise that they will have to comply with some quite extensive provisions but that their interests should in some way be protected as they come to implement them. I will want to return to the matter on Report, because it is important. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 [Introduction of employers’ duties]: On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?